Akins v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
439 F.2d 175 · 1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably United Shoe Workers of America v. Bedell (1974), Farrell Lines Inc. v. United States (1974)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 5595
Relies on Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · United States Knauff v. Shaughnessy · Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. · United States v. CIO
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 550.705 Failure to accept assignment. When an employee is separated because he declines to accept assignment to another commuting area, the separation is an involuntary separation not by removal for cause on charges of misconduct, delinquency, or inefficiency for purpose of entitlement to severance pay, unless his position description or other written agreement or understanding provides for these assignments. § 550.706 Resignation in lieu of involuntary separation. (a) Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, an employee who is separated because of resignation is deemed to have been involuntarily separated for purposes of entitlement to severance pay, if he has not declined an offer of an equivalent position under 550.701(b)(2), when he is separated because of resignation (1) after receiving a specific notice in writing by his agency that he is to be involuntarily separated not by removal for cause on charges of misconduct, delinquency or inefficiency * * * and (3) after receipt of a notice by his agency proposing to separate him for declining to accompany his activity when it is to be moved to another commuting area because of a transfer of function and when all positions in his competitive area are to be abolished or transferred to another commuting area within a period of not more than 1 year. (b) When the facts and circumstances available to an agency show that a resignation under paragraph (a) of this section is unrelated to the issuance of one of the n”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The unequivocal language of the challenged regulation denies the payment of severance pay benefits upon the happening of either one of two separate and distinct events. That is to say, severance pay will be denied if any employment with the successor public non-Federal agency is accepted within 90 days of the date of replacement, or if a comparable position is offered at the time of replacement and subsequently declined____ ... [T]he question of comparability of job functions and related benefits becomes moot once any employment with the successor public non-Federal agency is accepted within the prescribed time period. Only when the offer of employment is declined or accepted after this prescribed period does the issue of comparability become ripe for resolution____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“afford monetary relief to Federal employees who, after long years of faithful public service, “find themselves out in the cold without work and without retirement,” and with the complete loss of earned employee rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.